Europe’s medium-range weapons
After Trump announces US troop drawdown and refuses Tomahawk deployment, calls grow in Berlin for rapid development of own medium-range missiles – capable of targeting Moscow.
WASHINGTON/BERLIN (own report) – Following US President Donald Trump’s announcement that he would not be stationing medium-range weapons in Germany, calls are growing louder in Berlin for Germany to accelerate the development of its own cruise missiles. The capability of striking Moscow would, it is argued, be a must. Trump declared at the end of last week that he would be withdrawing five thousand American troops from Europe. He also declared a reversal of the long-planned decision to deploy Tomahawk cruise missiles or similar weapons. The move has been widely interpreted as a punitive response to critical remarks made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz about the US war on Iran being a blunder. Berlin is concerned about the lack of any medium-range strike-force, which would mean that Russian command centres could not be eliminated in the event of war. Trump’s decision will, it is claimed, leave a painful gap in the war plans being prepared by Germany and other European states. Consequently, a push has begun to redouble efforts to produce Germany’s own cruise missiles with a range of over 2,000 kilometres. On the other hand, Trump’s move might not be final. He faces criticism within the US military establishment. There are voices expressing concern about steps that would weaken the infrastructure of the US armed forces. Strong capabilities, like those available at the Ramstein military base, are needed to maintain America’s global war options.
Partial US withdrawal planned
As President Trump announced at the weekend, he intends to withdraw around 5,000 American troops from Germany. A total of more than 36,000 US military personnel are currently stationed in Germany. The country has largest US military presence in Europe and the second largest worldwide after Japan (55,000) and ahead of South Korea (28,500). In total, there are just over 85,000 US armed forces personnel in Europe. More than 12,500 of these are based in Italy and a good 10,000 in the United Kingdom. The US Congress passed legislation in December stipulating that the number of US military personnel permanently stationed in Europe must not fall below 76,000 for more than 45 days. Any deviations from this minimum presence must be fully justified to Congress by the US Secretary of Defense and the Commander-in-Chief of US forces in Europe.[1] Observers now suspect that, specifically, the plan is to withdraw an entire US combat brigade, which Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, had deployed to Germany for rotational exercises in response to Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Trump also says he intends to cancel the deployment of US medium-range weapons, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, to Germany and not to offer any alternative. The Tomahawks had been scheduled for this year.
New priorities
Trump has presented the withdrawal as, on the one hand, a punitive measure in response to comments made by Chancellor Merz about the US blundering into a war against Iran. Merz had let slip at the beginning of last week that he thought the Trump administration had gone to war “quite obviously without any strategy”. Washington was “clearly not pursuing a really convincing strategy in talks, either.” Indeed, Merz said in an unguarded moment that, “an entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership”.[2] Having picked up on this criticism, Trump launched a sharp verbal attack on Merz. In addition to US troop reductions in Germany, the President announced a 25 per cent tariff hike on cars from Europe. On the other hand, this move cannot come as a surprise. Trump has repeatedly reaffirmed in general terms his intention to reduce draw down US troops numbers in Europe. He actually announced the first concrete steps back in October with regard to the forces stationed in Romania. Following the start of the Ukraine war, a combat brigade previously deployed to the country on a rotational basis for military exercises was withdrawn at the end of last year and not replaced by another unit.[3] The reason given was that American troops were now needed elsewhere, reflecting new priorities. Latin America, in particular, forms a key focus of the new US National Security Strategy,[4] as does the ongoing pivot to the Asia-Pacific region.
The US’s global war logistics
In the United States, including among Republicans, the decision to draw down forces has met with considerable disquiet. For instance, the chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, both Republicans, pointed out that Germany had granted US forces not only overflight rights for the war in Iran, but also a completely free hand in the use of the American bases located in Germany, most notably Ramstein.[5] Punishing Germany now would, it is said, send a risky signal. Politicians argue that Ramstein in particular, but also other US military facilities in Germany such as the Landstuhl military hospital, were an indispensable component of the global military infrastructure operated by the United States. Without these bases it would be impossible to wage wars – particularly in the Middle East – in the way they have been conducted to date. European bases, it is claimed, offer American forces “an alternative route” to the Asia-Pacific region if this were needed. Indeed, “US troops in Germany and Europe” were “not there to protect the Germans”, retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, a former Commander of US Land Forces in Europe, was quoted as saying: these military assets “are for the US, not for anyone else”.[6] Anyone withdrawing troops from there would therefore primarily weaken US war logistics.
“Taking out command centres”
In Berlin, Trump’s reversal of plans to deploy US medium-range weapons in Germany, which had been agreed back in 2024, seems to have caused alarm. The original motive for deploying such weapons, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, was to turn up the heat on Russia. It was officially presented as a temporary solution, lasting several years, until Germany and other European states could develop their own medium-range systems with the desired range, i.e. the potential to hit Moscow.[7] This transitional arrangement is now likely to be scrapped. Nico Lange, formerly head of the German Defence Ministry’s executive staff unit (until 2022) and now an expert with various influential think-tanks, argues that this is a major setback. He said at the weekend that Berlin wanted a “counter-threat” against “missiles that threaten us from Kaliningrad.” The government had ultimately wanted to “procure this from America”, but it was “not getting it now”.[8] Medium-range missiles were considered a “central element” of the arms build-up against Russia because they would have made it possible to “take out” Russian “command centres”, stated Christian Mölling, formerly the deputy director of research at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP) and currently setting up a new think-tank (Edina: European Defence in a New Age).[9] Without cruise missile capabilities, he notes, “we’re in a rather difficult situation here.”
Moscow within striking distance
In Berlin, calls are now growing to do everything possible to accelerate the so-called ELSA project. ELSA, which stands for European Long-range Strike Approach, was initiated in July 2024 by Germany, France, Italy and Poland on the side-lines of the NATO anniversary summit in Washington. The project aims to develop and manufacture cruise missiles or hypersonic missiles with a range of at least 2,000 kilometres. The objective is to be in a position to replace the US medium-range weapons with their own missiles by the early 2030s.[10] In mid-February, the defence ministers of the project’s four founding states plus the United Kingdom and Sweden signed a letter of intent that further formalises the joint initiative.[11] In the long term, it will help to make Germany and Europe militarily independent of the United States. However, a time gap has now arisen with Washington’s refusal to provide Tomahawks until the first European missiles are ready. There are reports that Germany’s Defence Minister, Boris Pistorius, is negotiating with the Trump administration regarding a delivery of US Typhon missile launchers, which can be used to fire cruise missiles.[12] This procurement would, however, only consolidate Germany’s dependence on the US.
[1] Connor O’Brien: Compromise defense bill stymies Trump on Europe troop withdrawals. politico.com 07.12.2025.
[2] Merz sieht weiter keine Exit-Strategie im Iran-Krieg. stern.de 27.04.2026.
[3] Michael R. Gordon: U.S. Reduces Troop Numbers in Romania, Signaling Shifting Priorities. wsj.com 29.10.2025.
[4] See: Die Unterwerfung Lateinamerikas.
[5] Shelby Holliday, Michael R. Gordon, Vera Bergengruen: Trump Orders the Withdrawal of 5,000 U.S. Troops From Germany. wsj.com 02.05.2026.
[6] Bertrand Benoit, Daniel Michaels, Michael R. Gordon: Trump’s Threat to Pull Troops From Germany Risks Eroding U.S. Power Projection. wsj.com 30.04.2026.
[7] See: Moskau in Schussweite.
[8] Keine „Tomahawk”-Stationierung – was das bedeuten würde. tagesschau.de 02.05.2026.
[9] „Die Amerikaner reduzieren damit ihre eigene Sicherheit“. zdfheute.de 02.05.2026.
[10] See: Moskau in Schussweite.
[11] Martin Chomsky: Six European nations sign letter of intent to advance long-range strike and defence capabilities under ELSA programme. defence-industry.eu 13.02.2026.
[12] Laurent Lagneau: Les États-Unis annulent le déploiement de missiles à longue portée et d’armes hypersoniques en Allemagne. opex360.com 02.05.2026.
